TrishAndHalli.com

Where we bring you fresh opinions on Idaho government, observations on life in general, great recipes, and an opportunity to comment on them all!

RSS Feeds, Etc.

Get New Posts Via Email! Enter your e-mail address and hit the 'Subscribe' button. Your address will never be sold or spammed.

About

Profile TrishAndHalli.com
Where we bring you fresh opinions on Idaho government, great recipes, and an opportunity to comment on them!.

Archives

Categories

Pages

Blogroll

Conservative News

General Interest

Idaho Falls Links

Idaho Politics

Left-Leaning Idaho

Libertarian Links

Pro-life Organizations


Jerry Sproul, CPA
ThoughtfulConsideration.com

Please take a moment to visit our sponsors!

David Ripley: Pence Comes to Idaho

September 16th, 2016 by Halli

Idaho Chooses Life

Vice Presidential candidate Mike Pence came to Boise yesterday for a fundraising event.

While the rigors of a national campaign did not allow him to stay in the Gem State for long, it was clear that he is well familiar with Idaho’s leading political actors. After his introduction by Gov. Butch Otter, Pence talked about his service in Congress with Butch. He also spoke with admiration about the record of Sen. Jim Risch – who has once again been singled out as the most conservative member of the United States Senate.

Gov. Pence is exactly the same person as he appears in television interviews: humble, passionate about the Constitution and devoted to his Christian faith. Rather than speaking about his personal ambitions, Pence spent most of his time talking about his interactions with the presidential candidate, Donald Trump. It is clear that he has gained a sincere admiration for the man and appreciates the fact that perhaps his greatest contribution to America may come in helping Trump win in November.

Pence emphasized the dire consequences of a Clinton presidency, particularly in the area of Supreme Court precedent and the ensuing legal turmoil.

And Mr. Pence made several references to the need to restore protections for America’s preborn children.

It speaks volumes about Mr. Trump’s judgment that he chose Mike Pence as his co-pilot in the battle to restore the Republic.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

Posted in Constitutional Issues, Family Matters, Guest Posts, Idaho Pro-Life Issues, Presidential Politics | No Comments »

David Ripley: Right to Life Endorses Trump

September 16th, 2016 by Halli

Idaho Chooses Life

The National Right to Life Committee announced yesterday that it was formally endorsing Donald Trump for President. In a public statement, NRLC focused on Hillary Clinton’s radical agenda to expand abortion in America – while acknowledging Trump’s oft-repeated commitment to appointing pro-Life judges to the federal bench.

After securing the nomination, Mr. Trump issued a public list of eleven potential nominees to the U.S. Supreme Court in the event that he gets the opportunity to make such appointments. The list of possible candidates was met with universal acclaim by pro-Life activists familiar with the records of those individuals.

Mr. Trump has also repeatedly stated his intention to end the federal government’s partnership with Planned Parenthood – America’s largest merchant of prenatal death.

By contrast, Hillary Clinton has led her party into a deeper partnership with the world’s most nefarious organized crime ring. She has endorsed Planned Parenthood’s demand for public financing of abortions and pledged to appoint abortion adherents to all levels of the federal judiciary.

Mrs. Clinton has even gone so far as to call for a reform of Christian theology in order to end formal opposition to legalized abortion.

The urgency of this presidential contest was highlighted by revelations that abortion cheerleader Barack Obama has – in addition to his Supreme Court appointments – made some 326 appointments to federal district courts around the country. He has been immensely successful in packing the courts with liberals. As of now, he has managed to gain a majority of Democrat appointees in 9 of the 13 federal court circuits. With a lifetime license to kill and destroy, these liberal federal judges will be wreaking havoc on American justice for decades.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

Posted in Family Matters, Guest Posts, Idaho Pro-Life Issues, Presidential Politics | No Comments »

Richard Larsen: The Lesser of Two Evils, or Third Party?

September 16th, 2016 by Halli

by Richard Larsen

The presidential election of 2016 presents a consequential conundrum for voters, especially conservatives. With antipathy running at historic highs for a Republican nominee, the temptation to vote third party or not at all is significant. While each must make his or her own decision about what matters most in the process, we have to bear in mind the consequences of our decision.

First, let’s dispense with what elections are and what they are not. Voting for candidates is a means of selecting representatives for our governance. The most pervasive definition is, “An election is a formal decision-making process by which a population chooses an individual to hold public office.” The U.S. is not a theocracy, so we aren’t voting for a pastor, or a spiritual leader, or a great moralist.

Candidates have platforms, or statements of belief to delineate their policy positions in order for voters to ascertain their intent if elected. Ideally, all candidates are decent, honest, and honorable. So what do we do when the two major candidates in a two-party system are not? The most logical approach is to remove the subjective elements and focus strictly on the objective, by comparing your beliefs with those of the candidates. A superb way of seeing how your convictions align with the candidates is on the Internet at www.isidewith.com. Take the quiz at the top of the page for the presidential election and see how your view on the role of government, and specific issues, aligns with the candidates.

Although several candidates, including those from the Libertarian, Constitution, and Green parties are included, and may be on most of the state ballots, ours is fundamentally a two-party system. Some of that is due to our political history as a nation, but according to a research piece by the University of California in 2004, the Electoral College is one of the principle reasons. With a multiple party system, the ability to achieve the requisite 270 electoral votes is greatly diminished, which would cause presidential elections to be decided by the House of Representatives, rather than the popular vote by state, selecting Electors.

One Independent candidate has a strategy to take just one state, which his supporters argue, could possibly prevent either of the major candidates from surpassing the 270 electoral requirement. As it stands now, with the states Hillary Clinton has solid leads in, she has a 262 to 154 Electoral vote lead. Realistically, this isn’t even close, since all Hillary has to pick up is a state or two among the nine toss-up states, while Trump has to pick up all of them to win.

Because of the strength of the two-party system, third-party candidates inevitably draw voters from one of the two major parties. The Green Party takes some liberals from the Democrats, and the Constitution Party draws from the Republicans. While the Libertarian Party draws some from both, in part due to the social policies including legalization of drugs, but mostly from the ranks of the GOP. With the high level of dissatisfaction with the GOP nominee this year, the more votes siphoned away from one party or the other may have an impact on who ultimately wins, just as in 1992. That year Ross Perot, an Independent, amassed nearly 20 million votes, but didn’t win a single state or any Electoral votes. George H.W. Bush lost to Bill Clinton by only five million votes, but it was an Electoral landslide for Clinton with 370 to 168 Electoral votes. The Independent candidate handed the victory to Clinton, having funneled off enough Republican voters to deny Bush the reelection.

Many voters are caught up in the “lesser of two evils” debate, averring they could never choose to support a candidate who is perceived to be only slightly less “evil” than the other. From a logical perspective, this approach to voting is fundamentally flawed, for it’s based on the premise that there is, in the political space, the opposite of evil – a perfect candidate. There are no perfect candidates. We’re all mortal, hence fallible and imperfect. Thus, technically, every election is a choice between “evils.” And since we’re dealing with mortal institutions, every choice is a gradation of imperfection and fallibility.

So given that all candidates are mortal, and therefore flawed, or if you will, “evil,” to some degree or another, we’re always voting for the lesser of evils. Let’s approach this concept from a logical and philosophical perspective based on Immanuel Kant’s deontological ethics, or duty-based ethics. From a Kantian “moral imperative” standpoint, to in any way facilitate the victory of the greater evil, is contrary to our duty to the republic. So if one acknowledges that one of the major candidates is more “evil” than the other, to allow the greater evil victory, by siphoning away votes from the lesser evil, is in fact immoral.

The bottom line is, why do you vote for a candidate? Do you vote for someone you believe honest, but whose convictions are antithetical to your own, or do you vote for the one who aligns closest to your convictions and preferred policies, perhaps in spite of perceived personal flaws? If politics was an ecclesiastical exercise, and you were selecting a new pastor, perhaps the former makes most sense. Ideally, all of our candidates would be honest and without character flaws. But as mortals, imperfection is a given, perhaps especially in the realm of politics. And since politics is about governance, and policy follows principle, ideological alignment is a more fundamental and realistic basis from which to choose.

Before the pro-liberty voter commits to a third party, they must consider the implications if they enable a Clinton victory. A few key issues to consider: 1. More Ginsburgs and Sotomayor’s on the Supreme Court, or more Scalia’s and Alito’s? 2. Less regulation versus more regulation. 3. More free enterprise or less? 4. More U.S. sovereignty (and concomitant security) or less, by ceding authority to the UN. 5. A stronger military or a weaker, more diluted and socially engineered one? 6. More wealth redistribution, or more personal accountability and freedom to achieve? 7. Keep Obamacare, or repeal it?

The reality is that either Clinton or Trump will win. Sometimes we have to step outside of our comfort zone and vote based on policy and the greater good, rather than on a person, or assuaging our intrinsic sense of propriety. This is especially true for those who live in swing states where the election outcome will be determined.
Abstinence from voting, or voting in such a way to facilitate the election of the “greater evil,” certainly would be a violation of the moral imperative. We’d best consider the consequences of that third-party vote, or not voting, because if Clinton is handed the victory, the political hangover the morning after the election is going to be a doozey!

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

Posted in Constitutional Issues, Guest Posts, Pocatello Issues, Politics in General, Presidential Politics | No Comments »

Richard Larsen: If You are Displeased with the Candidates and Didn’t Vote, YOU are to Blame!

September 16th, 2016 by Halli

by Richard Larsen

Politics may not be of interest to you, but politics sure has an interest in you. Whether you feel it doesn’t make a difference by having your voice heard, or you just don’t care what government does to you or demands of you, the political process is heavily dependent upon you. And frankly, it often succeeds due to failure on our part to be involved.

Politics, after all, is simply “the activities associated with the governance of a country or other area, especially the debate or conflict among individuals or parties having or hoping to achieve power.” It is the exchange of ideas for governance that occurs in a free society.

There is a more pejorative, or less desirable aspect of the political process that is often laced with conflict over those who seek positions of responsibility that is often a “turn off” to many. This is understandable. But it’s simply part of the process, and arguably the biggest part, that determines the ideas and principles employed to determine the future of a community, a state, or a nation. One can be involved in the exchange of ideas, and sharing or supporting principles or even politicians, and still not be embroiled in the corruption that often defiles the process.

But isn’t that how life is in general? To all good and important things, there are less desirable antecedents, or concomitant events or actions. The pain and discomfort of childbirth is followed by the joys of parenting and delightful children. The prolonged dedication to jobs and work produce the comforts of life we aspire to for our families. The temporal loss of a loved one accompanies a greater appreciation for life and the impact of the one on our lives. As one good book says, “there is an opposition in all things.” There’s the good with the bad, the joys with the pain, and the light with the dark. In short, there’s the satisfaction of articulating correct principles, which is sometimes accompanied by social conflict over those ideas.

Surprisingly, usually only 50-60% of eligible voters in the country vote for their president. In midterm election cycles, between presidential elections, eligible voter turnout drops to as low as 38%, as with the 2008 midterms, even though they are arguably even more important perhaps than the presidential elections. And with each election cycle, every two years, local and state officials are vying for votes to give them the keys of governance. And since local government has a much more significant impact on our immediate quality of life, every election, even strictly local ones, are much more effectual for each of us personally.

There’s a video circulating on the internet that uses pennies to illustrate how many fellow citizens voted in the presidential primaries this year to provide us the two major candidates for president. It starts with 324 pennies, each representing a million people. Subtract 103 pennies from those, which represents the 103 million who are ineligible to vote, like children, non-citizens, and felons. Then subtract another 88 million who never vote, not even in general elections. Then delete another 73 pennies representing those who didn’t vote in the primary elections, but will likely vote in the general election. That brings us down to 60 pennies, representing those who voted in the primary elections, about 30 for each of the two major parties. Half of those primary voters cast their ballots for someone other than the two nominees. Statistically, just 14% of eligible voters, or 9% of the entire population, voted for Trump or Clinton. Fully 161 million eligible voters did not vote for either candidate.

Now, in light of this data, consider how much different the outcome could have been if even a percentage of the 88 million who never vote, had done so, or a portion of the 73 million who were eligible, yet failed to vote in the primary election. If you are dissatisfied with the two nominees, yet failed to vote, you are part of the reason why out of 324 million people, we are left with two significantly flawed candidates.

For those who choose apathy over involvement, are there no principles or ideas you deem worthy of your support? No concepts so important that you are willing to take a stand? No individuals who support the same values that you deem worthy of your support, or at the very least, a vote?

Elected officials, and politics in general, determine a great deal about your life, or can have significant impact on your quality of life. They can impact how dynamic the economy is, which effects what kind of job you may have, or how much you can earn, or how much of your hard-earned money you get to keep. They will have an impact on what government demands of you, what kinds of healthcare you get, the kinds of products that are available to purchase, and the quality of our food and environment. They have an impact on our social environment, the respect or lack thereof for the law, and the quality of our educational system for our children and grandchildren.

In short, there is very little they don’t have an impact on. And their success in implementing their ideas is directly effected by the involvement of the American citizen. We are, after all, a republic, founded on the principle that we are bestowed with inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Are we forfeiting our rights by not participating in the process that determines our ability to retain, protect, and maintain them?

Thomas Jefferson stated, “There is a debt of service due from every man to his country, proportioned to the bounties which nature and fortune have measured to him.” To some, that debt of service may be to serve in an elected capacity. To some, to fairly and accurately report the facts of what is occurring in our nation and our communities. And for others, it is to merely work hard for our families and pay our taxes. But for all of us, without exception, the debt of service must include participation in the electoral process of choosing our leaders and representatives. Any less than this, as eligible voters, is a forfeiture of our rights as citizens to ensure our pursuit of happiness, and perpetuation of our republic.

For as the Nobel Prize-winning author José Saramago has said, “The painter paints, the musician makes music, the novelist writes novels. But I believe that we all have some influence, not because of the fact that one is an artist, but because we are citizens. As citizens, we all have an obligation to intervene and become involved, it’s the citizen who changes things.”

None of us can do everything, but all of us can do something. And the very least we can all do, is to be informed and to vote. In fact, our citizenship demands it of us!

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

Posted in Constitutional Issues, Guest Posts, Pocatello Issues, Presidential Politics | No Comments »

David Ripley: The Most Dangerous Man in America

August 28th, 2016 by Halli

Idaho Chooses Life

George Soros’ wide and deep role in funding and directing the American Left have come under some media scrutiny in the past couple of weeks, as a treasure trove of email traffic and documents from his “Open Society Foundation” have been made public.

Documents show that he is a primary financier of the Black Lives Matter group fomenting violence as well as lethal attacks on police officers across America. Other documents show his fingerprints on the movements to free violent felons from federal prisons, erase the nation’s border, revolutionize voting procedures and undermine America’s economic strength through a radical environmental agenda.

Despite a criminal record for insider trading, Soros continues to amass greater wealth and controlling influence within the Democratic Party. Reports indicate that he is now worth some $25 billion – the very personification of the “One Percent”. Yet he exercises a magnetic force on the politics of Hillary Clinton and many members of Congress – from both parties.

But among the many revolutionary/anarchist movements that Soros continues to spawn in a mad strategy of destroying western civilization, none is more troubling than his funding of the legalized abortion movement.

A recent report in LifeNews shows that Soros is spending millions of dollars to overturn pro-Life protections for preborn children in a number of nations – including Ireland, Tanzania, Mexico and Nigeria. His strategy in Ireland is to funnel millions into Amnesty International to promote the notion that abortion is a fundamental “human right”.

In America, Soros has donated more than $18 million to Planned Parenthood in the past five years. He then made an emergency allocation to Planned Parenthood in the wake of their baby-body-parts scandal to help them finance a public relations effort aimed at calming the consciences of most Americans. That kind of money and powerful influence is part of the reason that the Congressional inquiry into Planned Parenthood’s sordid practices has faded from the media’s attention, despite the panel’s irrefutable evidence of the darkest evil within America’s largest abortion chain.

This is but a brief overview of the dark influence of George Soros on modern American politics. But it is sufficient to confirm the worst fears that Soros is a one-man conspiracy to cripple America. The extent of his influence and effectiveness is truly horrifying.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

Posted in Constitutional Issues, Guest Posts, Idaho Pro-Life Issues, National Sovereignty, Politics in General, Presidential Politics, Taxes | No Comments »

Richard Larsen: Capitalism Works, if Government Would Just Get Out of the Way!

August 26th, 2016 by Halli

by Richard Larsen

A seemingly accelerating trend with many Americans is to look with skepticism and a jaundiced perspective at business, capitalism, and the profit motive. In spite of efforts by some to rewrite history, those of us who are students of history recognize that capitalism made America the economic superpower that it is. And the more we allow government to interfere in our economy, the more we move toward a fascistic system where government controls the means of production.

Business and the profit motive have turned us from an agrarian to a high-tech producing and consuming nation. All of us are dependent upon business and the profit motive for everything we do every day. From the manufacturer of the bed we arise from and the alarm clock we wake up to, to the toothpaste, shampoo, and comb we use in the morning. The beverage we imbibe to give us a kick-start in the morning and the vehicle we drive to work are products of once small businesses that have grown sometimes to global proportions. If any of those products or services we depend on get too expensive, we start shopping for cheaper alternatives. That’s capitalism in a nutshell.

Most of us even work for a small business driven by the profit motive. Those firms, created and managed by entrepreneurs, market and sell products, provide advice and services, and fill the needs of people from all walks of life. They pay us to fill a specific function within the company to help them service their customers more efficiently and cost-effectively. And most of them pay another 30% of our salaries or wages in the form of benefits to help retain quality employees. And according to Arthur Brooks of Syracuse University an amazing 89 percent of us are very satisfied or somewhat satisfied with our jobs.

As a matter of fact, according to the Small Business Administration, small businesses represent 99% of all employer firms, employ half of all private sector employees, pay 45% of total U.S. private payroll, generate 80% of new jobs annually, create more than 50% of nonfarm private GDP, comprise 97% of all identified exporters, and produce 26% of the known export value to our GDP.

Yet every time new governmental regulation is imposed on businesses, the costs increase. Whenever the government increases taxes on companies, the costs increase again. In order to stay in business, they must pass those costs on to their customers, or find other ways to reduce costs like eliminating jobs. That’s why it makes no sense to tax companies since we all end up individually paying their taxes via increased prices for their products and services.

And it’s not just small business that makes our quality of life what it is, but the brother of small business; BIG business. It’s not an evil concept, to sell things that people want and need at prices that most people can afford, so they can sell as much or as many as possible, applying the economies of scale. And they do so with a profit motive in order to share their success with those who ponied-up the capital, (investors, silent partners, share-holders) facilitating their business ventures. Remember, if they over-price their widgets, they price themselves out of the market. If they underprice their widgets, they’re not going to remain viable, and will have to lay off employees and won’t be able to pay all those taxes the government is requiring of them. Then their employees will have to hope they can find another widget company to replace the job they lost.

The media, Hollywood, and even some of our fellow citizens bash “big pharma,” big oil, or big retailers like Wal-Mart. But in reality what do those “big” evil companies do? They provide needed products and services at reasonable prices, and jobs, enabling our national economic engine, and our quality of life, to keep chugging along. They have limited control over much of their expenses, but to be able to continue doing what they do, they achieve a modest profit to ensure their viability in future years, and allow us to have a job.

When politicians promise “free stuff” at the expense of taxpayers, they’re doing nothing more than attempting bribery – they promise free stuff for our votes. And it’s not their free stuff. It’s stuff they promise to use governmental coercion to forcibly take from others, in order to redistribute to those they’re bribing.

It’s no wonder that Bernie Sanders, who nearly captured the Democrat nomination, (and would have if the DNC had not colluded with the Clinton campaign) garnered the support he did as the self-avowed socialist peddled collectivist promises for populist electoral support.

And Hillary Clinton is no less ideologically aligned with socialistic solutions. A disciple of Saul Alinsky, and the first architect of a socialized healthcare system for the U.S., she has made some brash statements over the years that reveal her ideological convictions. Among her many anti-capitalist statements are these nuggets. “We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good,” (6/29/04). “It’s time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few, and for the few and to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity,” (5/29/07). “(We) … can’t just let business as usual go on, and that means something has to be taken away from some people,” (6/4/07). “I certainly think the free-market has failed,” (6/4/07).

The brilliant economist, Thomas Sowell, has philosophically put the failed socialist ideology into proper perspective. “I have never understood why it is ‘greed’ to want to keep the money you’ve earned, but not greed to want to take somebody else’s money.” “Much of the social history of the Western world, over the past three decades, has been a history of replacing what worked with what sounded good.” And for academics who are smitten with the failed ideology, “Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant than only an intellectual could ignore or evade it.”

Too many of us rely on fallacious populist typecasts of what business and the profit motive do, rather than relying on our empirical observations of their contributions to our quality of life and economic viability. We allow the media, Hollywood, or anti-business kvetching to taint our perceptions with a failed, yet idyllically appealing narrative of “equality” or “social justice.”

PragerU has produced an insightful clip that explains this perfectly. It can be seen here.

The profit motive, capitalism, and free enterprise, are the backbone to our economic system, and as such, are the key to future growth and prosperity, individually and collectively. Government encroachment and increased regulation stymie future potential growth, our quality of life, and our job security. It’s time for Americans to quit buying (with their votes), what self-serving politicians promise for them. Less regulation, less taxation, less government spending, and less government control is the solution for future economic growth and security.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

Posted in Constitutional Issues, Guest Posts, Pocatello Issues, Politics in General | No Comments »

David Ripley: Tim Kaine – Perfect for Hillary

August 23rd, 2016 by Halli

Idaho Chooses Life

Sen. Tim Kaine, Democrat pick for Vice-President, is a near-perfect running mate for Hillary Clinton. He is a decent looking person, with a moderate amount of charm. Kaine seems reasonably intelligent and able to answer most questions. Not quite bland – but close enough so as to pose no challenge to Hillary, probably the least charismatic candidate ever nominated for the presidency.

But those are all the superficial reasons Clinton settled on the senator from Virginia.

A much more important qualification is Kaine’s Catholicism. His most important job is to lure moderate Catholics into supporting the Democrat ticket. He will preach the Democrat gospel of “social justice” from the campaign trail, rather than the doctrine of Catholic orthodoxy.

Ronald Reagan won the Catholic vote in 1980 and 1984; George Bush won Catholics in 2000 and 2004. Clinton and Obama won the Catholic vote in other recent elections. The only Republican to win the presidency and (narrowly) lose the Catholic vote was George Bush Sr.

That data suggests the critical nature of Kaine’s mission this November.

Kaine is well-suited to the task: He has a history of third-world missionary work, which serves as an entrée into the Hispanic Catholic communities. But it is his practicality and self-serving character which will make him most useful to Clinton.

Long ago, Kaine jettisoned the teachings of the Church on core moral questions: He is now “personally” pro-Life – but has vigorously defended the government’s imposition of legalized abortion on America. (And, by “personally” – we presume that he would never, personally, seek an abortion. Which is a good thing). He joins a long list of Catholic public officials – Pelosi, Kennedy, Cuomo – who have seemingly prospered in this world by jettisoning the inconvenient truths of their faith; officials who continue to succeed without a peep of censure from the hierarchy of the Church.

For years, Kaine has defended the notion that taxpayers – many of whom are Christians with a deeper grasp of the abortion horror – should not be coerced into paying for abortions; but that “principle” has come into conflict with the Democrat Party’s new platform. Consistent with a lifetime of adjusting his principles to accommodate his ambition, Kaine has recently come to believe that taxpayers should help poor women and girls kill their babies.

Which brings us to the central reason that Tim Kaine is such a perfect match for Hillary Clinton. The Clinton Family won’t have to worry about VP Tim raising Cain over the Mafioso-like operations of their White House. He is perfectly flexible.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

Posted in Guest Posts, Politics in General, Presidential Politics | No Comments »

Richard Larsen: The Democrat Convention – A Spectacle of Duplicity

August 12th, 2016 by Halli

by Richard Larsen

Ronald Reagan once memorably stated, “The trouble with our Liberal friends is not that they’re ignorant; it’s just that they know so much that isn’t so.” Seldom do we get such a grand stage to prove the veracity of his statement, as we did at the Democrat Convention last week. Here are just a few of the numerous examples that were liberally uttered during their confab.

Cecile Richards, CEO of Planned Parenthood said on the first day of the convention, “Planned Parenthood was founded 100 years ago, giving women the care they need to live their lives and chase their dreams — no limits, no ceilings.” Apparently she’s forgotten that PP founder, eugenicist Margaret Sanger, held the conviction that blacks and minorities should be “weeded out” from the populace. That sounds like a pretty significant “limit” and “ceiling,” to me!

Michelle Obama said, “We explain [to our girls] when someone is cruel or acts like a bully, you don’t stoop to that level. No. Our motto is: When they go low, we go high.” Apparently the First Lady is unfamiliar with how Barry has bullied his progressive agenda onto the nation, bypassing congress, which has the only authority to create laws. As the president has said, “I have a pen and a phone,” and he presumed that gave him all the authority necessary for him to create new law by simply and dictatorially declaring it. There has never been a bigger bully in the Oval Office.

She also said, “Don’t let anyone ever tell you that this country isn’t great — that somehow we need to make it great again. Because this, right now, is the greatest country on earth.” Hmm. I seem to recall her saying in 2008, “For the first time in my adult lifetime I’m really proud of my country.” She must not have thought it was too great then. Oh, maybe that’s because her husband hadn’t yet completed his “fundamental transformation” of America. Now that the government has eviscerated so many of our individual rights, and so many socialistic programs imposed on the populace, maybe it’s now great to her.

Senator Elizabeth Warren declared, “Look around. Americans bust their tails, some working two or three jobs, but wages stay flat. Meanwhile, the basic costs of making it from month to month keep going up. Housing, health care, child care — costs are out of sight. Young people are getting crushed by student loans. Working people are in debt. Seniors can’t stretch a Social Security check to cover the basics. And even families who are OK today worry that it could all fall apart tomorrow. This. Is. Not. Right!” Well what do you expect, Senator? Those are the predictable results of seven years of Obama Administration policies. Since Hillary would be the heir apparent to perpetuate those destructive policies, the Senator has unwittingly provided the very evidence why Clinton should not be elected!

Warren also said, “People get it: the system is rigged.” That couldn’t be more true for Bernie Sanders supporters, who saw the DNC rig the system to ensure Hillary’s coronation. And perhaps not coincidentally, the economy is now “rigged” against the middle class, as they shoulder the immense costs associated with the redistributive policies of Obama, and the increased costs of onerous regulations imposed on small business over the past seven years. Yes, it is rigged. And Obama, Clinton, et al did most of the rigging!

Erstwhile presidential candidate Bernie Sanders said, “Together, my friends, we have begun a political revolution to transform America, and that revolution — our revolution — continues.” One can only wonder if he didn’t get Michelle Obama’s memo that America is already great. And if perpetuation of that “revolution” means more of what the past seven years has dumped on the nation, heaven help us if his revolution is not yet over! The middle class can’t take much more of his idea of “transforming America.”

Khizr Khan, a Gold-Star Father and an immigration attorney specializing in Muslim immigrants, said, “Donald Trump, you are asking Americans to trust you with our future. Let me ask you: Have you even read the U.S. Constitution? I will gladly lend you my copy. In this document, look for the words ‘liberty’ and ‘equal protection of law.’” Well, apparently Khizr Khan hasn’t read the Constitution himself. The word liberty only appears in the preface explaining the purpose of the document, and “equal protection of law” is nowhere to be found. Granted, the 14th Amendment assures “equal protection under the law” for citizens, but not for those whom Khan was promoting. Further, when he said Trump’s proposal to limit Islamic immigrants was “unconstitutional,” he obviously didn’t know about the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 which allows the president to “bar migration of any alien or class of aliens the president sees as a threat to the United States for any reason at any time.”

Former Attorney General Eric Holder said on day two, “As the brother of a retired police officer, I am profoundly aware that an attack on a police officer anywhere is an attack on our entire society. So it is not enough for us to praise law enforcement after cops are killed. We must protect them, value them…” Holder has arguably been at the helm of the nationwide war on policemen. Milwaukee Sheriff David Clarke has said of Holder, that he is “the most race-obsessed attorney general in the history of the United States… Everything he does is put through the racial lens. He’s had Ferguson, Missouri and its police department in his crosshairs ever since he went down there with that tragic situation with Mike Brown.” He and his boss are most culpable for the threats to our law enforcement officers resulting from the Black Lives Matter movement.

Former Senator and presidential candidate Howard Dean declared, “We need a president who will defend our interests around the world — not with ignorant bluster and bombast, but with toughness and resolve.” He’s exactly right! Obama certainly hasn’t done that, even with Clinton at his side. Electing the one most responsible for the chaos in Libya, abandoning Americans there to die, and then lying about it, hardly fits the bill!

And finally, from outgoing President Barack Obama, “While this nation has been tested by war and recession and all manner of challenges — I stand before you again tonight, after almost two terms as your president, to tell you I am even more optimistic about the future of America. How could I not be after all we’ve achieved together?” According to the most recent NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, 73% of registered voters say the country is on the wrong track, while just 18% said it is headed in the right direction. I’m not sure he has any ground to brag from. And Hillary represents just more of the same.

And then on the final night it was the candidate herself. In one paragraph in her speech, she lamented the horrible condition of the economy, and yet claimed Obama and Biden didn’t get enough credit for it.

It’s little wonder that a party whose core principles move ever farther from the republic’s foundational values, would display such detachment from reality. These observations should be universally acknowledged, yet inexplicably they get lost in the spin of the media and partisan myopia. If indeed 73% of registered voters believe the nation is headed in the wrong direction, the last thing we should do is to add another four years to the Obama legacy of economic malaise, regulatory overreach, redistributive policies, and foreign policy ineptitude.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

Posted in Constitutional Issues, Guest Posts, National Sovereignty, Politics in General, Presidential Politics | No Comments »

Richard Larsen: DNC Corruption at the Core – the Latest Evidence

August 11th, 2016 by Halli

By Richard Larsen

What a revelatory week this has been for the Democrat Party. From media collusion, to the resignation of the head of the Democrat National Committee on the eve of the convention, the curtain has been pulled back on the inner workings and modus operandi of the DNC.

Just a few days before the convention Julian Assange’s Wikileaks released over 20,000 emails hacked from the DNC. From the publically exposed internal emails what many of us have suspected was verified, that the DNC colludes with the mainstream media on their reporting. As one source described the collusion, “The intimate relationship between the Democratic Party and the media isn’t just a conspiracy theory dreamed up by paranoid conservatives. Turns out, there’s more bias in some newsrooms than there is at a Lois Lerner auditing party. From reporters giving party officials a chance to edit or comment on their stories to outright dictating what questions Democratic officials will be asked on air, the collusion uncovered in the pages of messages is astounding — even for the most cynical media critic.”

Another dubious practice with the mainstream media was also revealed. Over 15 specific recent examples were exposed of mainstream media “draft sharing” their stories before publication. Draft sharing is a practice of sharing the drafts of stories with sources before the stories are published.

While not illegal, from a reporting standpoint, the practice is unethical, according to journalism experts. Renita Coleman, a professor of journalism at the University of Texas at Austin, has said, “It’s been a time-honored code that you don’t show sources stories before they run.” Edward Wasserman, the Knight Chair in Journalism Ethics at Washington and Lee University, said that draft sharing is “hard to square with even the most source-friendly reporting practices.” No wonder the mainstream media sounds and acts like they’re simply the propaganda arm of the DNC.

Another media analyst made the observation, “The Left must know that it can’t win the war of ideas on a level playing field, so it resorts to lying, slander, and outright distortion — in many cases, with the liberal media’s help. Of course, the people most hurt by the press’s bias aren’t conservatives — they’re the American people, who never really get to know the truth about their candidates.”

The leaked emails also proved that the DNC purposefully tilted the political playing field in Hillary Clinton’s favor, sabotaging the Bernie Sanders campaign, much to the chagrin of Sanders’ supporters. The most egregious was denying the Sanders campaign access to the DNC voter database. Most political analysts are now saying had this not been done, Bernie would have won the nomination with the requisite number of delegates from the primaries. The revelations led to the resignation of Debbie Wasserman Shultz as the head of the DNC, on the eve of the convention. An underling gaveled in the first days of the convention.

But true to form for the party of corruption, Shultz was rewarded immediately by the Clinton campaign, by naming her as the honorary chairman of the Clinton campaign. Based on how she was running the DNC, through the lens of the leaked emails, it would appear she had been functioning as a de facto Clinton official all along.

Predictably, Clinton and the DNC blamed the Wikileaks revelations on the “vast right-wing conspiracy.” Mrs. Clinton’s campaign manager Robby Mook, claimed on ABC’s “This Week” that they were leaked, “by the Russians for the purpose of helping Donald Trump.” Mook offered no evidence, of course, which only further invests the Clinton campaign more in their conspiracy theory of a “vast right wing conspiracy.” If anything, the DNC emails prove there’s a “vast left wing conspiracy” of collusion between the party and the mainstream media.

The DNC emails also prove how they take for granted the Hispanic and the black vote. Multiple emails from DNC staffers referred to the “buckets” of voters, based on race. They further prove how they take those voters for granted by claiming that they are the most “brand-loyal” voters for the party. It should be immensely disturbing to those voters that they’re assumed to be so loyal that they are merely blind puppets of the party that panders to their special interests.

Equally disturbing was the pejorative way they are sometimes referenced by the DNC. One staff member, and Obama campaign veteran, Rebecca Christopher, referred to their courtship of Hispanic voters as “taco bowl outreach.” That kind of “branding” should cause all sentient Hispanic voters to rethink their commitment and fealty to the DNC.

As if to not let Jewish voters feel left out, on the first day of the convention, Congressman Hank Johnson (D-GA), compared Israeli settlers on the West Bank to “termites.” Rabbi David Wolpe, writing in Time after the Johnson gaffe, was astounded at the “shockingly limited amount of play in the press,” the statement received. Especially, as Wolpe points out, since the “terminology evokes some of the worst expressions of historical anti-Semitism—those moments in time when Jews were characterized as ‘vermin’ and targeted for ‘extermination.’”

As the New York Observer printed earlier this year, in a pieced titled, “Sooner or Later the DNC will Have to Face Its Corruption Issues,” the DNC has “come under scrutiny throughout the Democratic primaries, from rigging the debate schedule, to inciting a lawsuit from the Sanders campaign over access to voter database files, to colluding with the Clinton campaign through a joint fundraising committee—the Hillary Victory Fund—which was recently accused of violating campaign finance laws. The fund has also been linked to buying the support of superdelegates as the Clinton campaign gets to decide where and how much money goes to state Democratic Parties.” The piece linked much of the corruption to “the fear of retribution” from the DNC and party leaders, which “has been silencing Democrats for way too long.”

Neither of the major parties is immune to the foibles, follies, and imperfections of the individuals either leading or working in them. But the Democrat Party, at least at the national level, appears to be corrupt at its very core, as copiously evidenced by the leaked DNC emails. Perhaps it’s time for all cognitively functional Democrats, especially Hispanics, Jews, and blacks, to rethink their blind party loyalty.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

Posted in Constitutional Issues, Guest Posts, Presidential Politics | No Comments »

David Ripley: Historic Struggle for Life Continues

July 16th, 2016 by Halli

Idaho Chooses Life

In the wake of the most recent Supreme Court ruling, some in media have suggested that the political, social and legal fight for preborn is all but over. Of course, wishful thinking is not a measure of reality.

In recent days, it has become clear that the pro-Life community is more resolute than ever to end the tyranny of legalized abortion.

For example, just yesterday the House Appropriations Committee voted on a key funding bill for the State Department and foreign aid programs. In it, Republicans fought to defend pro-Life values by denying funds for the UN’s Population Control programs – so long as they continue to aid China in forcing women there to submit to abortions. In addition, Republicans included language which would codify the “Mexico City Policy” – long a battle ground with Planned Parenthood and their Democrat advocates. Started under President Reagan, the policy prohibits U.S. tax dollars from going to international organizations who perform abortions in foreign countries. (In other words, Planned Parenthood International).

Since Obama destroyed the Mexico City Policy upon taking office back in 2009, the House measure obviously sets up a confrontation with Senate Democrats and Obama later this year.

We also saw a meeting of the Platform Committee yesterday preparing for the Republican National Convention. Reports indicate that they are recommending to the convention the strongest pro-Life platform in history. The Platform will call for an end to taxpayer funding of Planned Parenthood, as well as a ban on the use of aborted baby parts for medical research. Another section condemns the recent Supreme Court edict (Whole Woman’s Health) which prioritizes Planned Parenthood profits over the health and safety of women and girls.

The Republican platform stands in complete contrast to the upcoming Democrat statement on abortion, which apparently is becoming ever more radical. News reports indicate that Hillary will demand that taxpayers pay for all abortions if a woman or girl can’t pay the gangland slayers at Planned Parenthood.

Thus sets up an historic election. No genuine pro-Lifer can afford to be caught on the sidelines this fall.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

Posted in Constitutional Issues, Family Matters, Guest Posts, Idaho Pro-Life Issues, Politics in General, Presidential Politics | No Comments »

« Previous Entries Next Entries »

Copyright © 2oo6 by TrishAndHalli.com Powered by Wordpress          
Ported by ThemePorter - template by Design4 | Sponsored by Cheap Web Hosting